The new coalition government's emergency Budget announced in June has hit the poorest families hardest, a leading economic think tank says.

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the measures announced in the Budget were "regressive".

 

Its analysis suggests the poorest households are set to lose the most as a precentage of net income due to benefit cuts announced in the Budget.

 

The Treasury said it did not accept the "selective" findings of the IFS.

 

Housing costs

 

The IFS had already challenged the government's claim that the Budget was "progressive".

 

Its analysis suggests that cuts to areas such as housing benefit and disability allowance would hit the poorest families to the tune of £422 between the Budget and April 2014.

 

This means that only the richest 10% of households lost more in cash terms from the budget, than those in the bottom 10%.

 

The report also questioned the government's decision to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) instead of the Retail Price Index (RPI) when calculating certain benefits.

 

It said that more than three-quarters of benefit claimants were affected by increases in housing costs, which are included in the RPI.

 

'Selective analysis'

 

The shadow work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper accused the government of carrying out a "shocking and unfair attack on children and families".

 

"The idea that the poorest families with children should end up being hit hardest is appalling and gives lie to [Chancellor] George Osborne's claim it was a progressive budget," she said.

 

A spokesman for the Treasury said: "The government does not accept the IFS analysis.

 

"It is selective, ignoring the pro-growth and employment effects of Budget measures - such as helping households move from benefits into work, and reductions in corporation tax."

 

 

SOURCE: BBC News

It is right that the poor be affected, the rich and middle earners are being clobbered so I don't see why the poor should get off scot free, we are all in this together so it is right that everyone is affected by cuts

 

Welfare wise this country can't spend what it can't afford.

It is right that the poor be affected, the rich and middle earners are being clobbered so I don't see why the poor should get off scot free, we are all in this together so it is right that everyone is affected by cuts

 

Welfare wise this country can't spend what it can't afford.

I'm middle class - but for the poor don't deserve to be hit more than any one else.

I'm middle class - but for the poor don't deserve to be hit more than any one else.

 

I am not convinced that they are being hit the most

 

Those that are fiddling the system claiming to be sick or disabled when they are not or those that are living in lavish houses that most working people cannot afford are going to lose out heavily and rightly so.

 

 

 

 

Can someone please make distinction here between 'benefit-scroungers' and the genuinely 'working poor'. They are two entirely different things.

 

And it doesn't matter what measures any government takes ... those hard-faced, serial scroungers - the ones that the Heil and the Scum waft in front of people's faces ... will ALWAYS find a way round the system. And they're good for something ... it keeps the tabloids in business ... and Jeremy Kyle for that matter.

 

Its only the weak and those that genuinely need help that will eventually die out. But hey! Survival of the fittest and all that!

 

Watch Logan's Run and Soylent Green for possible solutions.

 

Norma

Can someone please make distinction here between 'benefit-scroungers' and the genuinely 'working poor'. They are two entirely different things.

 

And it doesn't matter what measures any government takes ... those hard-faced, serial scroungers - the ones that the Heil and the Scum waft in front of people's faces ... will ALWAYS find a way round the system. And they're good for something ... it keeps the tabloids in business ... and Jeremy Kyle for that matter.

 

Its only the weak and those that genuinely need help that will eventually die out. But hey! Survival of the fittest and all that!

 

Watch Logan's Run and Soylent Green for possible solutions.

 

Norma

 

Spot on..

 

And, as usual, Craig the Nazi seems to think it's perfectly okay for the genuine working poor to suffer more than the rich and shameless and corporations who regularly cheat the tax system of this country to the tune of billions every year.... THAT is the real scandal of it all... And not a single measure has been brought in by ANY Govt over the past 20 or 30 years to make these buggers pay what they're supposed to...

 

Quite the opposite in fact, the bank "bail out" took from the poor and gave to the rich... Robin Hood Tax in reverse....

 

The Govt doesn't HAVE to make the poor suffer, they want to, it's ideological and it's something the Tories have always done, only this time they've got their puppets, the Fib Dems, to be their patsies when the sh*t hits the fan....

 

What this country needs - riots and full-scale uprisings of the working and lower middle-classes.....

 

 

 

Indeed.

 

Tax cheats are a far bigger problem than the relatively small number of dole scroungers and the amounts involved are astronomically higher. The Lib Dems want to close as many loopholes as possible (or at least they did) but whether the Tories will allow them to do that I do not know.

Indeed.

 

Tax cheats are a far bigger problem than the relatively small number of dole scroungers and the amounts involved are astronomically higher. The Lib Dems want to close as many loopholes as possible (or at least they did) but whether the Tories will allow them to do that I do not know.

 

You've gotta be kidding mate... That would involve making scum like Lord Ashcroft, the Tory's goose that lays the golden eggs, pay what they're supposed to... The clue as far as the Tories go is in their name CON-servative.... That should be enough warning to any sensible working person that a vote for them is a vote for tax cheats and corporate corruption on a massive scale.......

 

 

I am not convinced that they are being hit the most

 

Those that are fiddling the system claiming to be sick or disabled when they are not or those that are living in lavish houses that most working people cannot afford are going to lose out heavily and rightly so.

The latter lot could probably be counted on most people's fingers. Stop referring to ONE case that was rightly leapt upon by the media as a general trend.

 

In any case, I agree with Norma. You completely fail to distinguish between various types of poor. Why is it right that all poor are hit the hardest by a crisis that was NONE of their doing?

The latter lot could probably be counted on most people's fingers. Stop referring to ONE case that was rightly leapt upon by the media as a general trend.

 

In any case, I agree with Norma. You completely fail to distinguish between various types of poor. Why is it right that all poor are hit the hardest by a crisis that was NONE of their doing?

 

£1600 a month (£400 a week cap) is a lot of money outside of somewhere like London, I think anyone could manage on a £1600 a month place, I pay £1100 and my place would fit a family of 4 and that is in London so I don't believe that people need more than a £1600 a month house paid for by the taxpayer

 

It is right that everyone pays something towards clearing up the mess, I am, everyone should, why should someone who goes to work each day, works hard to provide for their family see their next door neighbour living the life of riley on benefits ? people on benefits and the working poor should chip in too for sorting out the mess.

 

The poor voted in Labour who created this mess in the first place remember that.

 

The rich are the ones who create the jobs that the unemployed will end up doing, squeeze them too hard and then that affects the poor as less jobs are created, while "soak the rich" is a nice soundbite and sounds great to the lefties the reality is that the rich and the better off middle classes create the jobs.

 

 

£1600 a month (£400 a week cap) is a lot of money outside of somewhere like London, I think anyone could manage on a £1600 a month place, I pay £1100 and my place would fit a family of 4 and that is in London so I don't believe that people need more than a £1600 a month house paid for by the taxpayer

 

It is right that everyone pays something towards clearing up the mess, I am, everyone should, why should someone who goes to work each day, works hard to provide for their family see their next door neighbour living the life of riley on benefits ? people on benefits and the working poor should chip in too for sorting out the mess.

 

The poor voted in Labour who created this mess in the first place remember that.

 

The rich are the ones who create the jobs that the unemployed will end up doing, squeeze them too hard and then that affects the poor as less jobs are created, while "soak the rich" is a nice soundbite and sounds great to the lefties the reality is that the rich and the better off middle classes create the jobs.

£1600 a month was only for families of 4 though? And Surrey =/= London.

 

Pretty much EVERYONE voted in Labour in 1997! And it's a fallacy to think it would've been any different under the Tories given they were cheering on Labour's deregulations - so I guess we have just as much reason to soak the middle class and rich then, eh Craig?

 

The rich SHOULD pay first for their own crisis. A CEO murders several people - you don't not send him to prison just because he creates wealth :/

£1600 a month was only for families of 4 though? And Surrey =/= London.

 

Pretty much EVERYONE voted in Labour in 1997! And it's a fallacy to think it would've been any different under the Tories given they were cheering on Labour's deregulations - so I guess we have just as much reason to soak the middle class and rich then, eh Craig?

 

The rich SHOULD pay first for their own crisis. A CEO murders several people - you don't not send him to prison just because he creates wealth :/

 

Should Fred Goodwin have gone to jail or faced criminal charges ? I would have supported it but the reality much as he bought the banking system to his knees with his recklessness he didn't break any laws unlike a CEO who murders people.

 

I think that soaking the rich and middle earners while bringing in short term boost would be a long term disaster, the important thing in this country now is to create jobs that get people off the dole queues and paying tax instead of claiming off welfare, are the poor going to create those jobs ? no, they haven't got the money so it is the rich and higher earning middle classes that are going to start the businesses that create jobs or expand existing businesses to create jobs, squeeze them financially and less jobs will be created and less businesses started, they should not be squeezed if this country is going to start creating jobs

 

 

Just to refresh, we all remember that these regressive measures were necessary so that Britain could cling onto the true Holy Grail: our AAA credit rating by Moody's.

 

Now, Moody's report that we're close to losing our AAA rating anyway. The reason? Because, in the words of a Moody's analyst, we're pursuing an overly-aggressive deficit reduction strategy.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67G2PG20100817

 

So why are we doing this again?

Just to refresh, we all remember that these regressive measures were necessary so that Britain could cling onto the true Holy Grail: our AAA credit rating by Moody's.

 

Now, Moody's report that we're close to losing our AAA rating anyway. The reason? Because, in the words of a Moody's analyst, we're pursuing an overly-aggressive deficit reduction strategy.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67G2PG20100817

 

So why are we doing this again?

 

There is no point being short termist it is long term stability we need and hammering the defecit will help us dramatically in the long term, the burden of debt this country has is a giant albatross around the nations neck that will continue to hold it back unless it is zapped

 

It is better to have 5 years of pain while the deficit is attacked and then long term stability more or less free of debt

There is no point being short termist

 

:lol: Oh please, during the election campaign, people like you were insisting we voted Conservative purely because of how the markets were going to act in the subsequent weeks! If that isn't short-termist, what is?

 

 

It is better to have 5 years of pain while the deficit is attacked and then long term stability more or less free of debt

 

Why? What good is being "debt-free" going to do if there's no jobs on offer?

And again, you fail to acknowledge the fact we've had a Budget deficit nearly every year since the War, including during the Thatcher years.

:lol: Oh please, during the election campaign, people like you were insisting we voted Conservative purely because of how the markets were going to act in the subsequent weeks! If that isn't short-termist, what is?

Why? What good is being "debt-free" going to do if there's no jobs on offer?

And again, you fail to acknowledge the fact we've had a Budget deficit nearly every year since the War, including during the Thatcher years.

 

The world has changed since Maggie's era Danny

 

We have emerging super powers in the form of China (forecast to become the worlds most powerful economic nation in the next 30 years), India, Russia, a revitalised Germany etc, unless Britain takes action to be competitive and a powerful economy we will lose out big time and getting rid of the debt will make us a more stable country economically and thus more attractive to businesses and to deals with India, China, Russia etc, just because other countries have debt doesn't mean we should

 

clobbering the debt which costs us billions a year in interest alone will give more scope for dramatic tax reductions which will make our country more dynamic, more prosperous and more attractive to the emerging superpowers to deal with when the tax cuts come at the end of the debt reduction.

 

There will be short term pain, next year will be tough, the following year even tougher I am under no illusion there but it is best that the patient swallows some bitter tasting nasty medicine if long term health is the end result.

Edited August 25, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

The world has changed since Maggie's era Danny

 

We have emerging super powers in the form of China (forecast to become the worlds most powerful economic nation in the next 30 years), India, Russia, a revitalised Germany etc,

 

Which is exactly why we need to promote economic growth now, rather than sending us back into recession by arbitrarily hacking away at a deficit.

 

 

There will be short term pain, next year will be tough, the following year even tougher I am under no illusion there but it is best that the patient swallows some bitter tasting nasty medicine if long term health is the end result.

 

Oh, how noble of you. And what nasty medicine will you, as one of the richest 10% of the country, envisage taking? What measures will you be hit by?

Edited August 25, 201014 yr by Danny

The poor voted in Labour who created this mess in the first place remember that.

 

Bollocks....

 

First off, the "poor" voted in what they IMAGINED was the Labour Party, and got instead a two-faced, upper middle-class git who praised Thatcher and took us into two wars, costing the country billions of pounds....

 

Secondly - The "British" Govt has, since the 80s, been slavishly following the fiscal policies of the USofA... THAT is what's gotten us into a mess... Facts are, if we'd been closer to Europe or our Commonwealth allies, and shored up our manufacturing basis more, and actually MADE STUFF AND EXPORTED IT, we'd probably have been enjoying a buoyant economy such as Germany's.... Instead we put our faith in a bunch of spivs in the City and Wall St, and they fukked us up......

 

Yes, we do have debt to deal with, but it's not OUR debt, it's the debt incurred by the banks and the scumbag city traders that you're so much in love with, so they should be made to pay for us pulling their arses from the fire....

 

 

 

Which is exactly why we need to promote economic growth now, rather than sending us back into recession by arbitrarily hacking away at a deficit.

Oh, how noble of you. And what nasty medicine will you, as one of the richest 10% of the country, envisage taking? What measures will you be hit by?

 

Being a company owner I have no doubt that I will have to cut prices quite substantially in order to gain contract renewals, the majority of my clients renew next year, with the economy likely to result in belt tightening I am expecting my revenues to drop by 1/3 so likewise my salary I pay myself will have to probably go down by 1/3

 

In the last financial year I took a salary of 44k, next year I will be lucky if I pay myself 30k if I have to cut prices at the level I expect to have to so don't be under any illusion, I will be swallowing plenty of the bitter tasting medicine

 

But as a businessman I believe that the long term gain out of the deficit reduction will be substantial, much more scope for massive tax reductions which is the one thing that boosts the economy more than anything IMHO

Edited August 25, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

Being a company owner I have no doubt that I will have to cut prices quite substantially in order to gain contract renewals, the majority of my clients renew next year, with the economy likely to result in belt tightening I am expecting my revenues to drop by 1/3 so likewise my salary I pay myself will have to probably go down by 1/3

 

In the last financial year I took a salary of 44k, next year I will be lucky if I pay myself 30k if I have to cut prices at the level I expect to have to so don't be under any illusion, I will be swallowing plenty of the bitter tasting medicine

 

But as a businessman I believe that the long term gain out of the deficit reduction will be substantial, much more scope for massive tax reductions which is the one thing that boosts the economy more than anything IMHO

 

Yeah, but you'll still basically have a roof over your head and be able to eat though... Your belt-tightening will basically consist of no expensive foreign holidays and maybe driving the same car for a couple of years, poor you, how are you ever gonna cope, eh......? :rolleyes: